This meeting has been convened for the purpose of the consideration by the select sub-committee of the Road Safety Authority (Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness) Bill 2012. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and his officials to the meeting. A grouping list has been circulated and members should be aware all amendments must be moved today. Before we commence, I ask members to ensure all mobile telephones are switched off. In addition, before commencing proceedings formally, I have a commitment to attend a Topical Issues debate this evening at approximately 3.45 p.m., at which time, with members' permission, Deputy Seán Kenny will take my place in the Chair. If votes are called during that period, Deputy Kevin Humphreys will act as substitute in my absence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Road Safety Authority (Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness) Bill 2012: Committee Stage
I note there may be some cross-over in respect of some of the points I intend to make and this should be borne in mind. I hope the Chairman will not throw my agreement to this section at me-----
No.
----- by stating members have agreed to it when I refer to a matter that may cross into it.
No. On that point and before proceeding to section 4, I note all the amendments tabled are in the name of Deputy Ellis. The amendments have been grouped and I assume the Deputy has the grouping list to hand.
Yes, I have received it.
Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 8 have been grouped together. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 to 19, inclusive, have also been grouped together, as have amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive. All other amendments that are not grouped will be discussed individually as they are encountered.
Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 8 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 30, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", with the consent of the Oireachtas Select Sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport,".
On these amendments, I thought it would be a good idea to require the consent of this select sub-committee to deal with some of the issues. I will elaborate further a little later but this select sub-committee also should have a role. It is not right for the Minister to have the complete say in handing over powers to others. There must be some other input from this sub-committee in respect of decisions.
I thank the Deputy for clarifying the purpose of these amendments. Section 4(1) of the Bill provides that regulations may be made providing for mandatory roadworthiness testing of vehicles, while section 4(2) sets out the issues that may be included in these regulations. Section 9(2) provides for prescribing, in regulations, the form that an authorisation under this section will take and for any conditions that may attach to that authorisation. These regulations will be made by me, as Minister, and will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Houses will then have an opportunity to annul such regulations, if dissatisfied with them, within 21 days. This safeguard is provided by section 3.
The need to obtain the prior consent of the Dáil or an Oireachtas committee to determine the provisions in secondary legislation is not normal practice as the Oireachtas delegates powers to Ministers to make secondary legislation. I am not aware of situations where such a partial delegation of powers exists in regulation and it may be that a requirement to seek advice and consent of the Dáil or an Oireachtas committee prior to making specific provisions in regulations would be unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. If the Deputy is referring to the determination of who can become a CVR test operator, then such authorisations are extensively provided for under Chapter 2 of the Bill. It would be inappropriate for an Oireachtas committee to have a role in the decision making process associated with the grant of authorisations as such would be regarded as unnecessary interference in the work of a public body and would be unworkable at practical level. The CVR system would become shackled by such bureaucracy. We need to ensure that the criteria for authorisations is applied uniformly and fairly without any political influence.
On the proposed amendment to section 21, the employment of personnel to make decisions and authorisations is clearly a matter for the Minister and, in practise, the RSA. The authority will be responsible for designating deciding officers to make decisions and authorisations associated with CVR test operators and CVR testers. It is best placed to select the most suitable people for the job. When it comes to the latter amendments, I do not believe it would ever be practical for an Oireachtas committee to decide who is or is not a test operator or CVR tester. This will be done by the RSA on the Minister's authority.
The Deputy's earlier amendment relates to the Oireachtas sub-committee reviewing a statutory instrument before it becomes law, which is something with which I am quite sympathetic. I am not happy with the manner in which secondary legislation works in that it is essentially signed by a Minister and placed in the Oireachtas Library, following which it must be read and noted by someone within 21 days before annulling it. However, that is how our secondary legislation process works. I cannot change the process and require that instruments must before becoming law come before a committee or Chamber. Such decision would require broader decision by Government, perhaps in the context of the constitutional convention or ongoing Dáil reform. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendments.
I refer the Minister to the manner in which the Bill dealing with clamping was dealt with. The mechanism of input from committees on Bills prior to their coming before the Houses has worked well. It is that type of process to which I was referring in the context of approval from committees. While I did not agree with all of what was recommended by the committee on the Bill dealing with clamping, the mechanism appeared to work.
That is a new mechanism which was agreed by Government as part of political reform. However, it is a mechanism in respect of primary legislation whereby a committee prepares a report upon which primary legislation is based. The Deputy's amendment relates to secondary legislation, which is quite different.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 to 19, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 22, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "Local".
I do not agree with the approach being adopted in terms of transferring responsibility for driving licences and commercial vehicle testing and road worthiness to the RSA. The local authorities have worked well in this area in the past. While there have been a few hiccups many of them were caused by particular companies contracted by the authorities, including the Ballymun NCT centre, which featured in a television programme. Local authorities have been accessible to everyone. I do not understand the reason we are going down this road.
The Minister, Deputy Hogan, has spoken at length about local government reform. The Bill as drafted will remove powers from the local authorities and councillors. This is not the only area in which this is happening. Irish Water, when established, will also remove powers from local authorities. I am concerned about the trend in this area. Many of us have served on local authorities. I was a local authority member for 12 years, during which time I found them, in terms of accessing licences and vehicle testing, pretty efficient. The Bill as drafted provides for the centralisation of all these services. What will happen to the local officer who previously undertook this work and will access to these services be by way of telephone? The trend in this regard goes against what I believe in. These services should be provided by local authorities rather than the RSA.
These amendments go against the spirit of the Bill, which is to introduce a new plastic card driving licence which will be produced centrally and to transfer responsibility for commercial vehicle roadworthiness testing to the RSA so that we have consistency in standards across the country.
On the plastic card driving licence, currently councils only have an administrative function in this regard. While the current system works well it will not work for the plastic card licence which will be similar to a credit card produced by special machine. While one could have 40 different local authorities laminating pieces of paper it would not be practical to have plastic card licences produced in 30 or 40 different locations. This is the reason the function is being transferred to the RSA. Having said that, there will be no repeat of the situation in respect of medical cards. There will continue to be a counter service at local level. The contract for production of the cards has already been tendered. In time, the contract for front of office operations will also be tendered. It may be the case that the local authorities will continue to provide this service or that this will be done in post offices, driving test centres, NCT centres and so on. The local customer facing aspect of the service will remain in place. I believe this will result in savings for local authorities, for whom the driving licence service is a loss making one. What currently is done by 220 people across the country will under the new system be done by 60 people in the RSA. It will become a profit making service which means not only will the Government move from a loss to a profit but staff in local authorities will be freed up to do more relevant work than laminating driving licences.
On commercial vehicle roadworthiness testing, the decision to go down this route arose from the Clara and Kentstown bus crashes. A detailed review of what happened in both instances determined that testing standards were not uniformly applied across the country and that there is a perceived inconsistency in the granting of test centre licences and the application of disciplinary procedures. That is why it was decided to have the same standards throughout the country and to apply them in the same way, which I think makes sense. The Deputy's amendments would perpetuate the existing system which has not been found to be effective and is no longer fit for purpose. Centralisation under one body - in this case, the RSA - is the best means of achieving consistency of application throughout all test centres and thereby ensuring a significant improvement in the quality of commercial vehicles on our roads.
I listened closely to much of the debate on Second Stage. The vast majority of Members welcomed the fact this plastic card licensing system will be introduced because it will standardise the licensing system and will be accepted throughout the world, which is welcome.
While I understand Deputy Ellis's concerns, this has nothing at all to do with the reserve functions of councillors. It is trying to create a more efficient licensing system. I agree with the Minister that it will free up the time of local authority administrative staff so they can deal with more localised essential services. That is welcome rather than have them do something which could be done in a more efficient way in a centralised location.
I welcome the Minister's reassurance to the committee that a local contact, or a local service, will be provided to the public and public representatives where queries or issues arise which may, in any way, diminish the service.
While I do not disagree with the Minister, there is a view among local authorities in rural Ireland that all services are being centralised in Dublin. Dublin is the most expensive place in the country in which to acquire accommodation. Some 60 people will be employed in the administration of this service. Will the RSA require additional accommodation in Dublin or will this be decentralised to a rural local authority?
We saw what happened when the processing of medical cards was centralised in Finglas in Dublin. What is happening there is very inefficient. We do not want to see a situation where everything is being pulled into the Pale at the expense of the rest of Ireland. Maybe the Minister will make a decision that the new plastic cards will be issued by a regional local authority. It would incur little expense - in fact, it would be a saving to the Exchequer if this was done. Perhaps he could look at the possibility of decentralising some of the services from the RSA headquarters on Waterloo Road in Dublin 4, which is probably the most expensive part of the city in which to acquire accommodation. Perhaps the Minister will consider a regional location for this facility.
Will the Minister clarify whether the new plastic driving licence will be somewhat similar to a passport with a security chip? Will the plastic licence be posted directly to the car owner's residential address or will it be picked up at an office?
It will be posted out. Initially, it will not have a chip but it will have one at a later stage. Again, that makes production more complicated. That will go out to tender, so the winner of the tender will produce it. As regards the commercial vehicle road worthiness testing centres, they will continue to be local. By their very nature, they must be spread throughout the country. The front office applications will also remain local. Again, by their nature, they must be. There will be one in every county, or at least one every 50 km.
The authority that will take control of the licences is the RSA , which is in Ballina. The 60 staff will be in Ballina. I am not sure if that is far enough away from the Pale for Deputy Bannon but it is about as far as we can go.
Unfortunately, it is not Longford or Roscommon.
Amendments No. 20 to 22, inclusive, relate to the licences. I refer to what the Minister said about issues being identified and things lacking in the local authorities. There are many good ideas in this Bill, apart from the direction we are taking, which would address a lot of those issues. Some local authorities did not do things right but mechanisms could be put in place to ensure they do. We are going down the wrong road of introducing a new conglomerate to deal with the issue of licensing and testing for the roadworthiness of vehicles. It is a wrong road to take.
Local authorities have experience and staff on the ground. The driver licence will be posted out but people were used to going to their local authority. We will end up with fewer people in jobs and local authorities with less work to do. We now have Irish Water and this will go to the RSA. What has the issuing of licences got to do with the Road Safety Authority? I do not see why the Road Safety Authority should get all these functions. Over the years, warts and all, the local authorities have, in general, done a very good job and have been accessible to everyone, including councillors and other politicians. How will I or a councillor access the likes of the RSA? The powers of local authorities and councillors are being eroded and that is where I am coming from in this regard.
The Chairman touched on the crux of it. It is a bit like passports in that it cannot be done at local level. Those front office services will still be available at local level. This is not pertinent to this Bill but in future, it will not be acceptable to hand in a passport photograph taken in a booth and everyone will have to have an official photograph taken which, of course, will have to be done at local level. It would be totally unreasonable to expect people to travel to any one location in the State to have their official photograph taken.
Deputy Ellis raised a good question about broader Government policy on what will be done at local level and at national level. For very practical reasons, I think this is best done at national level. It is a regulatory function and it is the same throughout the State. It makes sense that this is done at national level but that is not to say there are not other powers which perhaps should be devolved to local authority level. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, is doing some work on that. For example, one of the things we are posing is that local tourism offices be devolved to local level as well as functions probably in regard to roads. It is a two way street here, although I appreciate that so far, it has all been one way.
That is the problem I have.
It is intended that things will go the other way too.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, subsection (5), line 24, after "the" to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, subsection (2), line 8, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", with the consent of the Oireachtas Select Sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport,".
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 11, subsection (2) (i), line 26, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “Local”.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 13, subsection (3) (f), line 15, after “the” to insert “Local”.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 15, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
"13.—Section 12 of this Act shall not apply to those persons convicted of qualifying offences predating 10 April 1998, covered by the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.".
I have pressed the Minister on a number of occasions on this issue. There are many people who were involved in political activity over the years and part of the Good Friday Agreement was that they would reintegrate into the community, that their past actions would not be held against them and that they could access jobs across the board. The Government was in favour of the Good Friday Agreement and we should ensure that people who qualify under the Agreement should be exempt from these offences. It is a simple request but it is one that is important to the island of Ireland and to the process of reconciliation across the island. Many of these people, who come under the Agreement, now work in different areas. I have no doubt some of them may work in the taxi industry. I hope there will not be a witch hunt in regard to anyone. People have given a major commitment at personal risk in terms of supporting the Agreement and, in that respect, we should include such a provision in the Bill.
Section 12 provides that an applicant for an authorisation or a holder of an authorisation must inform the Minister if he or she has been convicted of certain specified offences. The offences in section 12 include, among others, murder, manslaughter and drug trafficking charges. This section merely makes it a requirement to notify the Minister and subsections (2) and (3) set out when this notification should be made and the type of detail that is required in the notification. The information provided will then be taken into account by the Minister - in practice, the RSA - in making a determination as to whether someone is a fit and proper person for the purposes of being CVR test operator or tester. The information will not necessarily preclude a person from being authorised.
Section 12(5) provides that the Minister may refuse, withdraw or suspend an authorisation if a CVR test operator fails to notify the Minister or provides misleading or false information in accordance with the requirements of this section. Again, there is no mandatory obligation to refuse, withdraw or suspend an authorisation in these circumstances but I should draw attention to subsection (6) which refers to a person found guilty of an offence for failing to notify the Minister or for providing false or misleading information to the Minister in regard to this section.
The proposed amendment will have the effect of excluding politically motivated offences, as specified under the Good Friday Agreement, for consideration by the Minister when determining the good repute of an applicant under section 12. The Good Friday Agreement provides for the accelerated release of prisoners for scheduled offences which range from murder and manslaughter to kidnapping, serious assault, armed robbery, drug smuggling and a wide range of firearms and explosive offences. In practical terms, the intention behind this amendment would mean that if a person had been convicted for murder but under the Good Friday Agreement was released early, then that conviction could not be considered by the Minister when determining good repute in the context of a CVR test operator or tester under the section.
The prisoner release scheme is a scheme for early release; it is not an amnesty. Prisoners are released under licence and their convictions are not expunged. It remains appropriate for the Minister and, in practice, the RSA, to be able to take into account the fact that such persons have serious convictions such as murder, money laundering, drug smuggling and armed robbery for the purposes of section 12. Of course, it is possible to notify the Minister that the persons involved are covered by the Good Friday Agreement and that does not require a legislative provision.The Minister is obliged to take such representations into account. Therefore, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
I have no intention of withdrawing my amendment. It is important that we live up to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. A system for which the local authorities had responsibility is now being transferred to the Road Safety Authority. I hope everyone would consider every situation involving people in respect of political offences over the years and that there would not be a witch hunt against anyone who has been involved in or is about to enter the industry who has abided by the Good Friday Agreement, which dates back to 1998. It should be possible to insert such a new section in the interests of fairness and taking account of what people have done in terms of signing up to the Agreement, the commitments of this and the previous Government and all the negotiations that took place. I do not see any reason a new section cannot be introduced outlining the benefits of including people under these categories that were part of the Agreement dating back to 10 April 1998. I press the Minister to reconsider accepting the amendment.
Before the Minister responds, will he clarify for the committee if notification to the Minister will result in the automatic disqualification of the applicant? Also, where would the provisions of the Spent Convictions Bill taper in with this section? A situation could arise where, under the spent convictions legislation, the record of a person who had committed an offence could be expunged. Would that person have to disclose that information in the application for a taxi licence even though the record of that offence would no longer stand? Somebody may have committed an offence and the spent conviction would expunge the record. If that offence were taken from the record because a period of time has elapsed does the person have to disclose that information as part of an application for a taxi licence, even though the record no longer stands?
I will answer the Chairman's first question first. The only requirement is that the person applying notifies the Minister and the RSA. In practice, this does not mean he or she will automatically be refused. As part of the notification the person can inform the Minister or the RSA that the conviction falls under the Good Friday Agreement and, as a result, that he or she obtained early release.
The Spent Convictions Bill, as far as I understand, does not give an amnesty and does not expunge conviction but means that a person does not have to declare the offences. As far as I understand, this area is not covered by the Spent Convictions Bill.
I have one further point in regard to this. There is a partnership in the Minister's Government. Over the years some of those in the partnership were involved in activities or were associated with different groups. It is always possible that people who are in government with the Minister might also be caught in this boat. I take on board what the Minister stated, namely, that the Minister in question will have the main say in this but I stress I would prefer to see it in this legislation. If that is not forthcoming I press the Minister to make a judgment call and state that people who fall into this category should be exempt from some of the barriers that might present in front of them in the future.
The Minister referred to taxis. If a family taxi business, established by a father or mother, is passed to the next generation, is there an obligation on those children to report something, for example, if the founder of the business had been involved in some political activities?
In practice, all this will be done by the RSA although in law it is to be done by the Minister. I will confer those functions on the RSA so none of these examples will come across my desk. The RSA will make the determinations. The legislation does not cover taxis. Different legislation will be introduced in the coming months by the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, to cover taxis. This Bill covers the commercial vehicle roadworthiness-----
Taxis were mentioned and I wanted to have clarity.
This Bill does not cover that area but there is a similar issue in regard to taxi licensing and good repute. This all speaks to bigger issues, to whether we want to go down the road of giving an amnesty to people who are covered by the Good Friday Agreement and expunge their convictions. That is an issue above my payroll.
I am not quite sure to which of my coalition colleagues the Deputy was referring in his earlier remarks but he might inform me later. I have never heard the full story.
It was before the Minister's time.
Before my time. It is not Big Phil, is it?
I am not going to say anything.
This is a bigger issue and must be dealt with at another time. In my view, the whole idea of drug smuggling or armed robbery being a political offence-----
I never knew drug smuggling was a political offence. Nobody mentioned that.
However, it is a different and bigger issue and it cannot be resolved pertinently in this Bill. The victims of some of those crimes would have something different to say. I suspect that will be an election issue in due course and when the election comes, people may want to vote for an amnesty for those people released under the Good Friday Agreement.
Drug smuggling has nothing to do with political offences. We are not referring to people convicted of drug smuggling but to political offences committed. I am a little worried by something the Minister stated, namely, that the sole responsibility is to be given to the RSA and the Minister will not have a role in determining this. For example, if the RSA makes a decision there must be a mechanism whereby one can discover whether the Minister or some other person can make a decision in the event of the determination going against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. I would be unhappy with the Minister's response, that the RSA will be the sole decider. In my view, that is not the right way to go. I would like to see an assurance in the Bill that there will be a proper mechanism to consider any such case should it arise. I do not say it will arise but there is a potential.
I thank the Minister for his clarification. It is very important that we acknowledge the Good Friday Agreement was not an amnesty and that any prisoners released under it were released under a specific licence. If the intention at the time was to deliver a total amnesty Deputy Ellis would not need to put forward an amendment of this kind. I would have concern if he were calling for people who committed very serious offences such as murder, drug dealing and firearms offences to be allowed-----
I did not say drug dealing.
Whatever. I would consider murder an even worse offence. Surely the Deputy is not claiming such people should qualify and that is the reason for his amendment. As one Deputy, I could not agree with that and I am sure the wider general public may agree.
How does the amendment stand?
I wish to press it.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 18, line 13, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", with the consent of the Oireachtas Select Sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport,".
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 41, after "Authority" to insert ", the Local Authorities".
I am opposing the section.
The Deputy's opposition has been noted.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 29, subsection (3), line 5, after "the" where it secondly occurs to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 29, subsection (4), line 17, after "the" to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 29, subsection (5), line 36, after "the" to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 30, subsection (6), line 10, after "the" to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 30, subsection (6), line 12, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 30, subsection (6), line 12, after "the" where it secondly occurs to insert "Authority, the".
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 30, subsection (7) (b), line 19, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “Local”.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 30, subsection (9), line 26, after "Authority," to insert "the Local Authorities,".
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 30, subsection (1), line 32, after "the" to insert "Local".
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 31, subsection (2), line 38, after "the" to insert "Local".
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No 20:
In page 34, lines 11 to 19, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b).
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 34, lines 34 to 39 and in page 35, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraphs (e) and (f).
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 35, to delete lines 4 to 23.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. The select sub-committee will adjourn until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 24 May when we will consider the Estimates for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Is that agreed? Agreed.